Phlox Pyros

Many books have recently been written by authors, such as Bart Ehrman inter alia, that talk of early or lost Christianities that were defeated and subdued by Christian Orthodoxy. One of these early forms of Christianity was Gnosticism.

I have never really understood Gnosticism very well with its very complex ideas about "Aeons" and emanations sent to give "knowledge" of the true God to humankind.

However, today I had something of an epiphany after reading some of the writings of the pagan philosopher-emperor, Julian (called The Apostate). (thanks to Roger Pearse for making these works available to us all online...)

Upon the Sovereign Sun
Upon the Mother of the Gods

Reading this pagan's understanding of the Gods and their relationship to life, the universe, and everything, I was struck by the incredibly strong similarities to the ideas found in Gnostic literature (perhaps with slightly different technical terminology).

It seems to me that Gnosticism was simply the syncretism of Christianity and the Paganism of the time (forgive me if this has already been pointed out by scholars that I am unaware of).

Another thing that struck me was how much it seems that Paganism of the time seems to have depended upon Platonian and Aristotelian ideas of creation and the Gods (eg. the 7 spheres of the heavens).

Does anyone else know much about these similarities? Am I correct in this assessment of Gnosticism?

Peter Kirby

More grist for that mill:

A recurring theme in heresiologies is to trace each school of gnosticism back to a pagan philosophical influence.

The neoplatonist Plotinus is obliged to distance himself from a Gnostic-like group in a part of his writings.

regards,
Peter Kirby

Julian

Can I just make a personal request? Whenever you refer to Julian the Apostate that you type out his entire name and title and not just Julian? I can't count the number of times I have gotten confused, and occasionally shocked, when reading a post putting some action at my feet actually done by a long-dead emperor...

Julian died in a war...

Julian wanted to rebuild the temple...

Julian published a famous book...

Yeah, I wish.

Phlox did fine here but this seemed like a good opportunity to point it out for posterity.


Julian

Phlox Pyros

When you say "heresiologies", I assume you are referring to early "Christian heresiologists" such as Ireneaus, Epiphanius, etc.?

Do you think they were correct? Or do you think that Julian THE APOSTATE had been heavily influenced by Gnostic philosophies?

So interesting, to me at least. Do you believe all of these arose mainly from the writings of Plato and Aristotle? They seem like such complex, yet similar, beliefs.

Finally, if Gnosticism really was a sycretism of Christianity and Paganism, then couldn't Christian Orthodoxy be considered to have a stronger claim to being the "true Christianity"?

Julian

I have some books by Plotinus. Can someone indicate where he talks about this?

Julian

Phlox Pyros

Here are some interesting links that appear to be reputable sources and may shed some light on the subject (no Gnostic pun intended there...):

Neoplatonism

Plotinus

Gnosticism

Phlox Pyros

I haven't actually read through them yet, but it looks like the link I provided on Plotinus references his "Cosmology". The philosophical ideas I'm refering to should be found in that or similar sections of this works.

Phlox Pyros

Julian The Apostate makes direct references to the ideas of a philosopher he seemed to consider quite enlightened by the name of Iamblichus. It turns out that Iamblichus was a student of Plotinus, as was Porphyry (whose works scared the Orthodox church so badly that they were destroyed...none of his works survive, to my knowledge, except in the works of the "heresiologists").

Peter Kirby

http://oaks.nvg.org/ennd.html#9

regards,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Correct.

The details are fictitious, but the main point that gnostics made some use of philosophy is correct. I don't know if it is any more correct than it is for the educated orthodox. It does seem that the gnostics generally were thinking people, as they had to be to decide to become a gnostic, while the catholic (universal) church recruited and contained every type of person. So it only makes sense that gnosticism would almost always make use of philosophy, the thinking man's mental furniture, while catholicism would use philosophy only to the extent that the thinkers within it so systematized their faith.


I don't understand the relevance of this question.

Pythagoras and other presocratics probably had an influence, as did other later philosophers. Aristotle had minimal influence on these types (or most of the world before the late middle ages).

The categories here are confused. There is no Paganism; it's a negatively defined category encompassing all that is neither Christian nor Jewish. Judaism itself blurs a lot with non-Judaism, making that distinction hard to make (but possible I would say). In any case, the extent to which a religious system has Jewish or non-Jewish precedents should have no logical connection to its being "true" or even "authentic" or "original."

regards,
Peter Kirby